Court dismisses DPP’s appeal in Msuya case

FAUSTINE KAPAMA

THE Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal lodged by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), challenging two rulings of the High Court in the trial of seven people charged with the murder of Arusha- based ‘billionaire’ gemstone dealer, Erasto Msuya.

A panel led by Acting Chief Justice Ibrahim Juma and Justices Mbarouk Mbarouk and Sivangilwa Mwangesi saw no reasons to fault the findings of the trial judge on the two rulings issued on March 21, 2017.

“This appeal is devoid of merit. We dismiss it in its entirety,” they declared. The two rulings related to refusal by the High Court to admit oral evidence given by Inspector of Police Samwel Maimu showing that some of the accused persons in the trial had confessed to have taken part in The murder of Mr Msuya on August 7, 2013 on his way from Mirerani Hills to ArushaTown.

In their judgment delivered in Arusha City recently, the justices noted that the main issue for determination of the DPP’s appeal, who had advanced two grounds to fault the High Court’s decision, related to the scope of section 57 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).

Such provision, according to the justices, requires a police officer, who interviews a person, in particular, an accused for the purpose of ascertaining whether that person concerned has committed an offence to reduce the interview in writing.

During the trial, the police officer had testified how some of the accused persons, Karim Kihundwa, Sadick Jabir and Ally Mussa, alias Mjeshi, freely and readily confessed when they were interviewed, but the police officer offered no explanations why he failed to record in writing such confessions.

“Had he recorded the interview, the record would have been a written proof of voluntariness. It would have shown the administration of caution and explanation to the suspects of their rights,” the justices said in their judgment delivered on August 8, 2017 in Arusha City.

Such line of testimony of the police office was introduced by the prosecution after the deference team comprising seasoned advocates Majura Magafu, Hudson Ndusyepo, Emanuel Safari and John Lundu, successively opposed to the admission of confession statements of the accused persons.

The justices went further, stating that there was no dispute the police officer, whose evidence suggested that he heard the accused persons confessing when interrogated by the Regional Crime Officer (RCO) did not comply with section 57 (1) of CPA with regard to recording his interview of the three accused.

They noted that interrogations of Kihundwa and Jabri at Limbuli village took at very least two hours, but the police officer did not show what impracticable circumstances prevented him from recording the contents of his interview of the two accused persons.